The Compromise of 1850 should not be passed The Compromise of 1850 is a controversial piece of legislation that will only increase sectional tension between regions distinct northern and southern parts of the Union. Its provisions include: the admission of the whole of California as a free state, the territory of Utah and the territory of New Mexico to determine their slavery status based on popular sovereignty, the cession by Texas of land to be given to the New Mexico, the slave trade to be abolished in DC and the enforcement of fugitive slave laws. If the main goal of this compromise is to preserve the Union, its attempts will be unsuccessful and unpopular. Rather, it arises from a broader dialogue and will pursue the inevitable secession of the Southern states, as the compromise ultimately does not satisfy the issues affecting both the Northern and Southern states. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Fugitive Slave Law is strongly opposed by Northerners, and the success of the compromise depends on Northerners' ability to enforce that legislation. This excerpt from America's Great Debate by Fergus M. Bordewich states that “the South got the harsh new fugitive slave law it had long sought, as well as the North's tacit abandonment of the hated Wilmot Proviso, which would defeat slavery from the new territories" (Bordewich). This act was one of the key elements of the compromise which would allow the passage of the other provisions of the Compromise of 1850. The Northern States, however, having developed a tendency towards a greater sense of abolition, would destroy their hopes of achieving that agenda. There are two major flaws that come with the enactment of a stronger fugitive slave law: The first is the public discourse by members of the Northern states. and the second is the difficulty of enforcing such laws, despite it being a federally mandated law. The first problem is the beliefs about slavery in these Northern states, people disagreed with these provisions and having to follow the lines. guidance set forth in the Fugitive Slave Act requires them to go against it one's ethics to uphold the law. This leads to the second problem, since Northerners have such an anti-slavery agenda, their enforcement of such an act will most likely be futile. Southerners will consequently lose more from the other elements of the Compromise of 1850, until they are promised only a very uncertain and unlikely application to return fugitive slaves. Admitting California as a free state threatens the balance between slave states and free states and will only give the Northern states more power in Congress. One of the resolutions of the Nashville Convention mentioned: “…slavery exists in the United States independently of the Constitution. Which is recognized by the Constitution under a threefold aspect: first as property, second as a domestic service or work relationship subject to the law of a State; and, finally, as the basis of political power. And, considered in any or all of these respects, Congress has no power under the Constitution to create or destroy it anywhere, nor can such power be derived... from any other source than by an amendment to the Constitution itself” (Resolutions of the Nashville Convention). Another point mentioned in the convention was "...it is the sense of this Convention that the territories should be treated as property divided between the sections of the Union, in.